the “T” word

Sure, one can tear apart this outrageous drivel line-by-line,
but it can more easily be dismissed by one phrase: US Constitution, Article V.
(What? It’s the process for amending the Constitution. Try to keep up, m’kay?)

The Constitution is not just “important or inspiring,” it’s a friggin’ CONTRACT !
The FedGov has no legitimate existence outside that contract.
It was created via this contract at the stroke of a pen, not as an act of God, and not as a state of nature .
It was created by the States and the people for their mutual self-interest, and the contract includes within itself the means to update itself as necessary.
If the FedGov fails to live up to the duties assigned to it by the people, especially in defending our natural rights, then it risks being replaced by another government which will.
If it exceeds the authorities and powers ceded to it by the people, especially those encroaching on our natural rights, then those acts are illegitimate, and the FedGov risks being replaced by another government which won’t.
(see: Declaration of Independence)

Unless these jackasses propose a new Constitution that we can read beforehand (so we’ll know what’s in it), debate freely, and vote on legitimately (or even propose amendments to the existing Constitution); and they continue to advocate the abandonment of the contract, then they will rightly be considered traitors and seditionists; and they risk being treated as such by Americans, unpleasant as that may be to contemplate.

The Constitution is not the problem.
Rampant jackassery is.

Temporary note: I tried to disable the video’s auto-play provision, and it doesn’t auto-play for me in Firefox, but if it sill auto-plays for you, let me know in the comments, and I’ll substitute a simple hyperlink.

Text of Jackassery BTF: »

From Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman:

I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it’s really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie. For example, most of our greatest Presidents — Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts — had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.

To be clear, I don’t think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn’t a natural-born citizen. So what? Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control. I understand, though, that’s not everyone’s view, and I’m eager to talk with people who disagree.

But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago. Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one’s commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.

This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today. If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.

14 Comments!

Can you imagine the circus that would be a constutional convention these days? Here, I’ll start:

First rule. If you are a current or former member of congress, you are disqualified from serving as a delegate.

Freddie Sykes

Posted January 27, 2013 at 4:50 pm |

Progressives do not believe in the rule of law. They want what the rule of what-seems-right-at-the-moment. Makes sense when you consider the influence of John Dewey on academia for the last hundred years:

Dewey’s philosophy was called instrumentalism (related to pragmatism).
Instrumentalism believes that truth is an instrument used by human beings to solve their problems.
Since problems change, then so must truth.
Since problems change, truth changes, and therefore there can be no eternal reality.

dick, not quite dead white guy

Posted January 27, 2013 at 4:56 pm |

a test of one’s commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.
So, what’s wrong with that? Sounds like a good thing to me.
I can’t believe a ‘scholar’ can miss the whole concept of guarding against the fickleness of rule by mobacracy, cult figure or king, and the dangers that will arise from allowing that. We have thousands of years of recorded human history full of misery to testify to that.

staghounds

Posted January 27, 2013 at 4:57 pm |

Since Plessy v. Ferguson or, at the latest, Wickard v. Filburn, there hasn’t been much of a constitution.

This professor fits to the tee the profile of all those in this country that need to be put on a cruise ship and deported to whatever “utopia” they wish. Get the EFF out of my country. If you can’t live by the law of the land or have the gumption to try and amend that law of the land, then get the sam hell out.

The Constitution. Love it. Or leave it.

Caged Insanity

Posted January 27, 2013 at 5:01 pm |

You know, if our country would have had the balls to actually execute traitors, we’d be in a much better situation these days, but “progressives” had their fingers in the pie 2 centuries ago, and conservatives were too “let’s compromise” to see what was actually happening.

Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause*

Posted January 27, 2013 at 7:08 pm |

well….

Even with the pre-warning of that other article [Nudge Balloon] this actually made my jaw drop.

Nice to know I still got that in me…

Caged Insanity

Posted January 27, 2013 at 8:29 pm |

off topic: Anyone else find it highly suspicious that the news media is already starting to hype the 2016 elections?

geezerette

Posted January 27, 2013 at 9:18 pm |

Nothing to be suspicious about. They aren’t hiding anything. We’re getting the ‘Bitch” shoved down our throats already. Don’t you know she’s the best Sec.State there ever was. Her service to this country is unprecedented she loves it so much. sniff sniff

So now let’s explore that idea further. If the Constitution is defunct because it was written by white guys who are dead, then shouldn’t communism be discarded for the same reason? I vote all religion be abandoned because their prophets are looooooooong gone. No rules unless they are fresh off the press and the ink is still wet!

The Constitution is irrelevant because it was written by people who “aren’t us”? Well, I sure as hell am not anything like Obama – he is utterly alien, and I don’t subscribe to his beliefs. Therefore, since they don’t represent “me”, any bill he signs into law is irrelevant.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been pre-authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, social, art, media, and cultural issues. The 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material that may exist on this site is provided for under U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with U.S. Code Title 17, Section 107, material on this site is distributed without profit to persons interested in such information for research and educational purposes. If you want to use any copyrighted material that may exist on this site for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
If you feel that any of the images used on this site infringe on YOUR rights, please contact me via the e-mail posted on this page and I will be more than happy to comply with your request and remove them.
All original photos and montages posted on this site are owned by me and marked to distinguish. They may not be used for any purpose without specific permission by me. PARTICULARLY the "Soni head" trademark.
You remain solely responsible for the content of your posted messages. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this website, its staff, and its subsidiaries. The owners of this website also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum.